It’s no secret that democracy is facing a global
stress test. Divisive politicians are creating a chasm between the majoritarian
impulses of electoral democracy and the inclusive strands of constitutional
democracy. The former emphasises a simplistic ‘winner takes all’ mentality to
advance partisan political agendas while the latter accommodates dissent and
minority voices through checks and balances. Notably, civil society activists
and organisations speaking truth to power and seeking inclusion in decision
making are facing severe hurdles as civic
space appears to be backsliding in several democratic countries.

Described as ‘a set of universally-accepted
rules, which allow people to organise, participate and communicate with each
other freely and without hindrance, and in doing so, influence the political
and social structures around them,’ an open civic space is a key ingredient of
a successful and rights respecting democracy. Sadly, there’s a gaping hole
between principle and practice. Amnesty
International’s annual
report offers a bleak picture of people’s basic freedoms in jeopardy while Human
Rights Watch laments that the dangerous rise in populism is spurring a global
attack on human rights values in its 2017 World Report. The CIVICUS Monitor , an online
participatory research platform concludes that in less than 26 of the over 195
countries covered is there open and free civic space.

With a view to shining a spotlight on
corrosive developments to suppress civil society voices in consolidated
democracies, CIVICUS and several sister groups hosted an event at the UN Human
Rights Council this March. Activists from Brazil, India, Poland and South
Africa shared their perspectives, arriving at the conclusion that founding
values and constitutions obliged their states to support civil society voices
not undermine them. They were joined by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human
Rights Defenders whose latest report
points out that rights defenders are facing unprecedented attacks intended to
undermine the ‘legitimacy, credibility and sincerity of their commitment’ as
populist, nationalist and fundamentalist movements of all kinds multiply.

Poland is the home of the Community of Democracies , an
intergovernmental body dedicated to strengthening democratic institutions and
defending civil society. It has recently faced a barrage of public protests
against undemocratic actions of decision makers. These include an ill-fated anti-abortion
bill to prevent women from having any control over their bodies and moves to
limit access of journalists to parliament buildings. Strong civil society
pressure appears to have defeated these measures for now but officials say that
they intend to create a ‘department’
to oversee and centralise public funding to civil society organisations. Many
interpret this as a move to encourage conservative pro-government NGOs and
punish others. There are also concerns about recent vilification of human
rights groups in the state-owned media as acting against ‘Polish interests.’

Brazil proudly hosted the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable
Development resulting in the adoption of ‘green economy
principles’ obliging states to work with and create an enabling environment
for civil society. Ironically, Global Witness
has described Brazil as the most dangerous country to be an environmental
activist. Brazil’s government needs to do much more to address the issue of
large agricultural concerns and extractive industries attacking environmental,
land and indigenous people’s rights defenders. With the recent change in
leadership involving the controversial impeachment of the last president, many
in Brazilian civil society are also worried about anti-people actions such as
the arbitrary imposition of austerity
measures to cap spending on education and social programmes which were
pushed without much public debate followed by proposed weakening of labour
rights that would disproportionately affect impoverished communities.

India’s diverse and historically vibrant
civil society has long been a source of the country’s soft power internationally.
However, increasingly intolerant strains dominating its current politics are
creating a new set of challenges
for the country. Several civil society groups particularly those uncovering
human rights violations and/or seeking to advance the rights of religious, ethnic
and excluded minorities are reporting victimisation through bureaucratic
harassment and frivolous court cases. Over 20,000 civil society organisations
have had their permission to receive international funding cancelled since 2014
when the current government came to power. Such acts are weakening India’s
democracy and its constitutional commitment to social justice derived from its
freedom struggle values.

South Africa’s progressive constitution
sets the tone for an enabling legal environment for civil society. Its 1997
Non-Profit Organisations Act is often cited as an example of enabling
legislation. But civil society groups in the country, particularly those
exposing high level corruption and governance failures, are anxious
about impending moves to replace it with a law that allows for enhanced
bureaucratic control over their activities including constraints on
international funding. There are also serious concerns about violent policing
of public protests. Many activists are asking themselves what can be done to
recapture the spirit of the 1994 democratic transition when government and
civil society worked together to find solutions to vexing national problems.

Admittedly, the issue of backsliding on
civic space extends far beyond the above countries. It’s an ongoing global
phenomenon being experienced in several democracies. In Hungary,
the ruling party has sought to control international funding for civil society.
In the Philippines,
the president has threatened to kill human rights activists. Several states in
the United
States have proposed laws to weaken the right to peaceful protest.

Consolidated democracies by their very
nature have a greater responsibility to uphold the international human rights
framework that guarantees civic space. The UN’s special
expert on human rights defenders has urged states to adopt a three-pronged
approach: refrain from violating rights, intervene to protect the rights of
defenders/civil society from others who violate them, and create an enabling
environment for defenders/civil society to carry out their activities.

Contestations on political and economic
issues are inevitable in any democracy. Civil society activists and
organisations don’t expect decision makers to always agree with them but they
do expect states to respect their right to disagree.

About the author

Mandeep Tiwana is the Head of Policy and Research at CIVICUS. He specialises in legislation affecting the core civil society freedoms of expression, association and assembly.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Popular Threads

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.